Please do tell me how it should impact evolution. WE have no evidence of differening trees of life or life coming about at different times. If there was other ways life came about, we have no evidence of it.

Actually, you have no evidence that life ever came from non-life so whatever your starting point for evolution is hinges on the nature of what that abiogenesis event(s) consisted of. What is evolution's starting point ? Your answer, at this point, is I don't know and I don't care because all I need to do is claim that life came from non-life. Again, do you see the blind faith involved in your assertion and the inseparability of evolution with abiogenesis ?

I showed you, it is observable. I don't care what other opinions are. I have shown evidence. That's what you should be looking at, yes?

In other words, there are different positions within the science of micro/macro evolution??....and it's open to interpretation and cherry picking (<-----the very thing you accused me of) ? That sounds like the same thing us Bible thumpers get clobbered for.

Please do tell me how it should impact evolution. WE have no evidence of differening trees of life or life coming about at different times. If there was other ways life came about, we have no evidence of it.

Actually, you have no evidence that life ever came from non-life so whatever your starting point for evolution is hinges on the nature of what that abiogenesis event(s) consisted of. What is evolution's starting point ? Your answer, at this point, is I don't know and I don't care because all I need to do is claim that life came from non-life. Again, do you see the blind faith involved in your assertion and the inseparability of evolution with abiogenesis ?

Genetically speaking, we appear to be from one source. We have genes in our bodies that match both biologically and functionally. And since evolution isn't a perfect process, some of those genes cause diseases in humans. The same goes for all sorts of other, simpler single and multicelled critters. And it works right up the chain of life. We share many genes with fruit flies, many more genes with mice.

And it's not blind faith, it is educated faith. We are disassembling the building blocks of life molecule by molecule and are getting ever closer to figuring out what this life stuff is. And guess what. If we can't do it, we'll have to admit we're stuck. That you're astonished that life might have started from non-life does not automatically make it less likely. Either it happened or it didn't. I'm confident that scientists will figure it out. If they can't, there is no way to fake that they can.

I showed you, it is observable. I don't care what other opinions are. I have shown evidence. That's what you should be looking at, yes?

Quote

In other words, there are different positions within the science of micro/macro evolution??....and it's open to interpretation and cherry picking (<-----the very thing you accused me of) ? That sounds like the same thing us Bible thumpers get clobbered for.

Like you guys, most scientists are in agreement about the overall picture of what happened. At times they quibble over the details. That people who like the concept of micro-evolution, and people who don't, both agree that evolution is occurring is apparently no concern of yours. Just that they disagree on some small part of the topic, which automatically invalidates the whole thing.

Why don't you use the same standards for all the differing versions of christianity?

You mean to tell me that the possibility that abiogensis may have occurred in different places at different times and perhaps in different forms has no real impact on evolution ? Do you know how ridiculous that is ? No wonder you are so determined to try and separate the two. Talk about a BLIND FAITH !!! Wow !!

We're not "trying to separate them" - they are separate concepts, whether you like it or not. One is possible without the other. There may be no DIRECT evidence of abiogenesis, but nor is there any evidence that life was created by God, seeded here by aliens, or arrived on a comet. In abiogenesis' favor, scientists have at least determined how it could have happened and established that the conditions for it were present in Earth's distant past. (No one has yet established the existence of God, or visiting aliens.) However life got here, there is overwhelming evidence that it evolved over time. A theist may believe that God sparked life on earth, and see no contradiction in the evidence for evolution. "Theistic evolution" is in fact the dominant position in mainstream Christianity, widely accepted by thinkers in the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant traditions. It certainly doesn't seem ridiculous to them.

Attacking abiogenesis is a red herring used by creationists because they find it easier to mock than the evidence for evolution. Even if you could somehow prove it impossible, it does nothing to weaken the case for evolution.

Yes there is. That's why Zircon crystals are so popular for radiometric dating of igneous rocks: The crystal is highly impermeable, so that its contents are sealed during crystallization. But to remove any ambiguity, multiple crystals are tested to get the most accurate date. If chemical alteration really did cause a problem for such dating techniques, then the more altered sections of an intrusion would yield different dates than the relatively unaltered sections would.

Igneous intrusions of sedimentary rock containing such crystals can be used to date the "youngest-possible" age of the rocks they intrude, since the sedimentary rock has to be older than the dike.

Do you disagree, BS?

EDIT: Wrong word.

Depends on whether you feel the presence of helium in the zircon crystals warrants any consideration. If so, then the dating of zircon becomes arguable.

We're not "trying to separate them" - they are separate concepts, whether you like it or not.

I'm not arguing that they are separate concepts. No argument there. However, unless you concede to some measure of overlap, you have NO starting point for evolution and that is a ridiculous proposition. The best you can say is "evolution just started."

Yes there is. That's why Zircon crystals are so popular for radiometric dating of igneous rocks: The crystal is highly impermeable, so that its contents are sealed during crystallization. But to remove any ambiguity, multiple crystals are tested to get the most accurate date. If chemical alteration really did cause a problem for such dating techniques, then the more altered sections of an intrusion would yield different dates than the relatively unaltered sections would.

Igneous intrusions of sedimentary rock containing such crystals can be used to date the "youngest-possible" age of the rocks they intrude, since the sedimentary rock has to be older than the dike.

Do you disagree, BS?

EDIT: Wrong word.

Depends on whether you feel the presence of helium in the zircon crystals warrants any consideration. If so, then the dating of zircon becomes arguable.

This study invalidated your creationist study on helium quite nicely. If you don't like the results, ignore them. of course. I understand how inconvenient the results are for you.

Educated faith, as I invented it, means that when a whole bunch of different studies in different fields all seem to indicate something similar, like the age of the earth or the age of fossils in a specific layer, the fact that many disparate methods all show the same thing beats the crap out of one guess that they are all wrong.

Yes there is. That's why Zircon crystals are so popular for radiometric dating of igneous rocks: The crystal is highly impermeable, so that its contents are sealed during crystallization. But to remove any ambiguity, multiple crystals are tested to get the most accurate date. If chemical alteration really did cause a problem for such dating techniques, then the more altered sections of an intrusion would yield different dates than the relatively unaltered sections would.

Igneous intrusions of sedimentary rock containing such crystals can be used to date the "youngest-possible" age of the rocks they intrude, since the sedimentary rock has to be older than the dike.

Do you disagree, BS?

EDIT: Wrong word.

Depends on whether you feel the presence of helium in the zircon crystals warrants any consideration. If so, then the dating of zircon becomes arguable.

Helium does not substitute for the elements being measured. As such, it should have no effect on Uranium-Lead dating in Zircon crystals.

Now, if you do disagree with any part of what I said in my post, then please state exactly which part of my post you disagree with. Otherwise I will take your evasions as a concession that you disagree with none of my post.

BibleStudent, the further back in time we go, the harder it is to specify time. There comes a point in which you cannot calculate to the last second, nor day, nor exact year. You should have learned that if you have studied Biology and Chemistry (the most basic of both of them, mind you). Nothing in the world is EXACT and perfect. If it were, meteorologists would have no problem predicting the weather. Despite them being given the data on the climate shifts, the wind speed, humidity, etc (many things go into account), they cannot say for sure. That's why there's, for example, a 20% chance of rain.

Digging up fossils and using the latest technology to study the dirt and type of rock (which is vital by the way to finding out the age) takes time. It cannot be exact to the last second, but it shows a very good estimate as to how old the rock is. As for the animal or plant skeleton, same thing applies. Plus, you have to be careful when handling material that is THAT old. You have to understand that just because we have estimates and complications from time to time (for example, the fossil is hard to make out) does NOT imply that all science is faulty. Science is extremely reliable; it becomes better and better each passing year. Otherwise, you wouldn't have a small cellphone, a computer (which requires lots of programming and materials to make), and food that is chemically safer for you (disease-resistant plants, bugs won't try to eat it as much, it grows faster, better yield, better tasting, etc). That's just a bit of what science can do for you in everyday life. As for the bigger mysteries of man, that's up to the educated people who spend years studying the subject in rigorous universities around the world, who feel the passion and drive to find out more about the world. We should all be thankful for having so much more information available today.

Read this, BibleStudent. Now I'll answer as to when does evolution starts. The beginning of evolution starts after Earth was made. Our cycle of evolution starts there (more specifically, in the ocean), with extremely simple bacteria, invisible to the human eye. Slowly, these organisms start evolving into multi-celled organisms; a more complex creature, still too small to recognize. Given enough time, the first little creatures start developing, such as plankton. But they had to start from prokaryrotes. So forth and so on.

If you fail to acknowledge any overlap with evolution and abiogenesis, then you are the one who is failing here. Do some research and you will find that there are more than a few scientists who would disagree with you.

You probably also subscribe to the "there is no micro or macro evolution...it's all just evolution" crowd, too??

Abiogenesis is "how life started." Evolution is "what happened to life after it started." There are Christians who believe in both creation and evolution- they just take abiogenesis and replace it with "goddidit."

And please, do educate me. What is the difference between microevolution (natural selection) and macroevolution (natural selection)? I want proof (peer-reviewed studies in well-known and respected publications without bias [creationsist journals don't qualify- they have an agenda]- wow! I just defined what proof is to me! is it that hard for you) from scientists who say they are 2 different things- they must have a degree of Biology or something closely related. Physics, Chemistry, and other sciences are not acceptable, since they don't study evolution.

Please cite the articles (from peer-reviewed respected journals without a creationist bias) regarding (1) abiogenesis being the same as evolution (or "overlapping" as you put it), and (2) that "microevolution" is somehow different from "macroevolution".

Still waiting on my proof... I noticed Velkyn tried asking for some, and you gave her links to a consipiracy theory site. (http://www.mtgriffith.com/index.php?p=1_6 on the JFK assassination... from the same site). The site is not a non-biased peer-reviewed article by a scientist with a degree in Biology (not another science, like Chemistry or Physics, since they don't study evolution). Please provide the proof I have asked for, or I will declare you a FAIL.

Come on. I just have a bachelor's degree in Biology from USC. I'm sure you can find someone with at least a Master's or a Ph.D from a reputable university (please, not Liberty University! You can't get an education in evolution at a creationist college). I'm not that smart. Find someone who is smarter than I am to prove me wrong.

This was the second rebuttal. I believe there was another one in-between. Let me look. You might be right.

This is the opening paragraph of the page to which you linked:

Quote

[A]fter seven months of silence, an anti-creationist geochemist named Kevin Henke has recently replied[1] to my rebuttal[2] of his March 2005 rejection[3] of scientific evidence that the world is only about 6,000 years old, the helium-leak age of zircons (radioactive crystals in granites). Most of his latest reply simply rehashes the issues to which I already replied, adding more words but less substance. However, he did bring up one new issue that is worth while to examine in detail — the possible effect of pressure (including zero pressure, a vacuum) on rates of helium diffusion (leakage) from the zircons while they were deep underground. It turns out that his case collapses under scrutiny. Here is his summary:

[1] is the footnote of the document to which the page you linked is supposedly a rebuttal. It is that document which lists a plethora of serious problems not addressed in the page you linked. The "in-between" rebuttal to which you refer is footnoted by [2], and is a response to a different paper entirely [3].

and (2) that "microevolution" is somehow different from "macroevolution".

I do not understand what you are looking for. Are you claiming that the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” mean the same thing ?....even though I linked to a reputable college institution that cites a difference ?? What do you want me to show you ?

I do not have 'peer reviewed' material so we can either work from what I do know....or, I guess you can just write me off as another Christian on a wild goose chase. Your choice.

Not at all. Just rendering sort of a summary statement at an end of a long page of waffling.

His is the tired tactic of demanding others do his homework for him, then ignoring their efforts, then--when others become irritated and bored with wasting their time with his willful ignorance--tries to pretend that his ignorance is the State of the Field.

I love this so much. In the actual paper BS is citing about helium in zircons, the temperature required to cause the change is 22.400K.

Acknowledging that this is pretty hot. I cited it earlier as three times hotter than the sun. I was wrong and I admit it. The surface of the sun is 5,800K, so it's actually almost four times hotter. My bad.

But what I love is what the author said after making that computation (my bold):

Quote

Incredible amounts of heat must have somehow been removed rapidly by a process or processes that we have not yet discovered or understood, for otherwise these rocks and the radiohalos in them would have been vaporized!

By the way, in this document he changed a whole bunch of numbers from his first document without explaining why. Don't you love honesty.

Of course, he's pretty unbiased. This is from the first research paper in the introduction:

Quote

Right from the start each scientist declared his complete faith in Scripture. While secular scientists bristle at the notion of melding science with the scriptural world-view, they do much the same thing with their naturalistic, materialistic world-view. The RATE scientists insisted on starting with the Scripture and building their understanding of science on that foundation.

There is a lower level of dirty . . . that does not involve Jim's Mom [Stop that!--Ed.] . . . it involves Holocaust Denial. I had the misfortune to [Infest.--Ed.] a skeptical site where a few HD'rs tried to "ask the questions." They quote their own "papers" of "historical review"--"you know . . . it really was not THAT many Jews!" They are basically Creationists with the added degeneracy of racism and sociopathy.

I love this so much. In the actual paper BS is citing about helium in zircons, the temperature required to cause the change is 22.400K.

Zircon crystals break down into separate chemical components at around 1933 Kelvin under ambient pressure. While it would be higher under higher pressure, somehow I doubt it exceeds 22,400 Kelvin for the pressures in question.

So, Zircon would not have crystallized at all at that temperature, regardless of whether the heat was subsequently removed via some unknown phenomenon.

I love this so much. In the actual paper BS is citing about helium in zircons, the temperature required to cause the change is 22.400K.

Zircon crystals break down into separate chemical components at around 1933 Kelvin under ambient pressure. While it would be higher under higher pressure, somehow I doubt it exceeds 22,400 Kelvin for the pressures in question.

So, Zircon would not have crystallized at all at that temperature, regardless of whether the heat was subsequently removed via some unknown phenomenon.

Note that this was supposed to happen during the flood. While Noah and family were still alive, etc. How to get a bunch of wet rocks hotter than the sun to do something impossible. Sounds like a job for GOD!

If you fail to acknowledge any overlap with evolution and abiogenesis, then you are the one who is failing here. Do some research and you will find that there are more than a few scientists who would disagree with you.

I still want proof from the "more than a few scientists" with the requirements I stated (peer-review, level of education and non-biased college in short)

and (2) that "microevolution" is somehow different from "macroevolution".

I do not understand what you are looking for. Are you claiming that the terms “microevolution” and “macroevolution” mean the same thing ?....even though I linked to a reputable college institution that cites a difference ?? What do you want me to show you ?

Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change

Where is the difference stated?

Quote from: BibleStudent

I do not have 'peer reviewed' material so we can either work from what I do know....or, I guess you can just write me off as another Christian on a wild goose chase. Your choice.

Peer review is how real science gets done. All I have asked for is for a reputable person with a reputable degree who has done a study and had it published to prove me wrong. I have consistently stated what I need for "proof." If you can't give me this proof, then yes, I will write you off.

Peer review is how real science gets done. All I have asked for is for a reputable person with a reputable degree who has done a study and had it published to prove me wrong. I have consistently stated what I need for "proof." If you can't give me this proof, then yes, I will write you off.